Davidson claims that historical hindsight shows how preposterous the claims made in favour of slavery were. He suggests they bear striking resemblance to claims made against taking any action on climate change by contemporary members of Congress.

The implication is that some years down the line, in a century or two perhaps, the comments of climate "deniers" will seem just as shocking as those of the slave owners of the 1800s.

"...the course of [the abolitionists] whose precipitate and ignorant zeal would overturn the fundamental institutions of society, uproar its peace and endanger its security, in pursuit of a distant and shadowy good, of which they themselves have formed no definite conception."(in: Simms 1852, p 98)

Davidson compares this to the words of current US congressmen who mention the "inconclusive and often contradictory" nature of climate science.

On the cost of change:

"Their [the slaves'] value, at $400, average, (and they are now worth more than that,) would amount to upwards of 900 millions. The value of their annual increase, alone is 24 millions of dollars; so that to free them in 100 years, without the expense of taking them from the country, would require an annual appropriation of between 33 and 34 millions of dollars. The thing is physically impossible."(James Henry Hammond, senator of South Carolina, 1836)

Davidson compares this to the often cited concerns that limiting greenhouse gas emissions will harm the US economy.

The crux of Davidson's argument is that the US economy now relies on oil in much the same way as the economy of the Southern States relied on slaves 200 years ago – as a key source of energy.

Although the quotes from the earlier congressmen are shocking, I'm not convinced the comparison is helpful. For starters, climate change and slavery cannot be compared. The former is a self-imposed "slavery" to a mineral source of energy; the latter an imposed slavery of one group of humans to another.

And although I agree there is also a moral imperative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, just as there was a moral imperative to the abolition of slavery, I do not believe morals and ethics are what will win the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

So, just because pro-slavers used economic arguments to defend themselves, all economic arguments from now on are invalid?

This is a line of reasoning which would end with us digging up motorways because Hitler built autobahns.

We are continually being told that "science" proves that MMGW exists and is a real threat. Arguments like this, though, are not only not scientific but manifestly absurd, and will convince only those who not only want to be convinced, but want to also convince themselves that anybody opposing them must be Evil. I've met this kind of mentality before. It's always displayed by people whose philosophy is both flawed and totalitarian, and has resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people, and needless suffering by hundreds of millions.

This is an unfortunate analogy between these two most different phenomena. Slavery in the US was a monumental crime against humanity which has never been adequately acknowledged. It remains a great stain against the US to this day. The comparison of the rhetoric used by apologists of both camps tends to trivialize the enormity of this horrific crime of slavery.Let us not muddy the waters with irrelevant arguments. Climate change is now accepted as an incontoverible fact by the majority of scientists. The scientific evidence for it is absolutely overwhelming. Let us not waste time and energy on useless debate with those who are impervious to reason and logic. We must act now before it is too late.

That said, I think the argument presented by Marc Davidson has something important to say. But, to get to that, it is necessary to step back from the "human" in "human slavery", to set that aspect aside and to look at it in purely economic terms. Forget, just for the moment, that African slaves were human beings, and try to look at the situation through the eyes of someone who sees them in strictly economic terms, as James Hammond, senator from South Carolina in 1836, did.

Put another way, each economy depends on a particular "commodity" for its existence, and comparisons of the "commodities" as "commodities" should be valid. Using the term 'slavery' with respect to oil dependency at the same time it is used to talk about human beings is very close to being disingenuous, as it focuses the discussion on aspects of the two systems that are clearly not shared.

So, I do think the arguments used in support of slavery can then be compared with, and shed light on, those used against climate change, showing similar dependence on hyperbole, such as "excessive costs", lack of "proven benefits" and other rhetoric.

this comparison is stupid. it debases rational thought to levels of abject propaganda.

it is true that only dishonest people will make this comparison but this is not an isolated incident. many studies are 'massaged' to exclude other influences in the destruction of our ecosystem. i.e. volcanic disruption under Greenland the cause of melting. AND ice buildup on the arctic.

lets not forget that many problems are CAUSED by deforestation and not simply CO2 overproduction.

so if you want to bury your heads in the sand and think that carbon credits will save the earth then go ahead but your ignorance feeds propaganda and that's bad for everyone!

Interestingly, the slave trade was a system enshrined in--and artificially propped up by--government intervention in the economy. A true free market would have rendered slavery dead in America long before the bloodbath of 1861-1865.

Slavery was propped up by a long-standing system that penalized the South with huge tariffs. These tariffs were collected at Southern ports, but the revenue was sucked by the North for so-called "internal improvements" for nascent Yankee industries--a term recognizable today as "corporate welfare." The net effect of this, over generations, was to pigeonhole the Southern economy and render it calcified and resistant to change from an agrarian/feudal system into the thriving, diversified, and cosmopolitan place it could have been.

More importantly, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Fugitive Slave Law in the disastrous Dredd Scott decision. This federalized the ownership of human beings, making it a "crime" for people to harbor enslaved people on the run. The result here was that far more people were inclined to take on the risk of owning a slave who might otherwise run away and never be returned.

Similarly, the so-called "horror" of greenhouse gases can and will be mitigated by allowing the free market to operate properly. Currently, there are trillions in subsidies extracted from the US Taxpayer (and from the value of the Dollar, itself) to prop up greenhouse emissions: farm subsidies, highway bills, BLM land use contracts, etc. etc. Oh yes, and don't forget the permanent occupation by garrisons of US troops near the Arabian Peninsula and elsewhere, and to the US Navy to keep the sea lanes open...Talk about a huge blank check issued to global shipping companies and the industries that benefit from them!!

So you see, the current energy policy and the slavery issue has similarities, but not ones that left-wing "progressives" often care to ponder:

(1) The end of slavery in the USA was done with with massive force and enormous misery and dislocation--probably unnecessarily so--and so will the ending of carbon use

(2) The end of slavery could have been ended peacefully based on sheer economic forces, alone, had the US govt. simply stepped out of the way and not propped up an immoral and dehumanizing industry; likewise, if the USA stops propping up massive wastefulness, the consumer will respond with a demand that will be met by far greater efficiency.

We are actively recording all of the comments made here to place in time-capsules that will be passed onto future generations.

They will simply marvel that so many people were deluded by a belief that human-produced CO2 was the primary driving force for climate change on decadal time-scales.

The sad thing about the GW hysteria is the damage that it going to do to the very basis and fabric of the public's perception of science.

When natural drivers of climate change produce a cooling in the coming decades, it is going to be hard for people like Marc Davidison to find a rock to hide under.

Even the most rudimentary scientist knows that you cannot insulate a scientific idea from questioning or criticism by appealing to "concensus". Simply stating over and over again that an idea is widely held is not a guarantee that the idea is correct.

My whole problem with the Climate Deluders (pro-anthropomorphic global warmers) can be summed up by the phrase "doth protest too much".

I am reading the IPCC IV report and before it even explains the facts, it goes on and on about how perfect the theory is and how dissent is wrong when you have such a good theory and how great the theory is and how really nutty almost anyone who dares to challenge the theory (which we will get to in a moment) that is so great and which you, should be thankful for.

So, first they call the dissenters "Denialists" and now we are Slave Owners. What's next? Slaughterers of the Innocents?

Can't a person ask a question without the Spanish Inquisition coming down on your head and calling me names?

Perhaps a better anology would be the Spainsh inquisition were the doom mungers are the inquisitors laying down their narrow minded 'truth' while the rest of us are persecuted for not believing their rhetoric.The simpletons join up, the intelligent no better.CO2 levels have a negligible effect, if any on global temperature. The evidence is very clear but there are non so blind as those who will not see.

There must be another class of climate enthusiasts here. We've got the climate affirmers, and the climate deniers. How about another like the climate wafflers? Or perhaps the climate ignorers? Even better how about the climate existentialists?

Where I live, Nova Scotia, was under 1Km of ice 12,000 years ago. Those damn cave men with their CO2 belching fires ruined any chance of our getting the winter Olympics here. Climate changes; it gets warmer; it gets colder. Do we have much impact? I doubt it but making arguments like this slavery one takes the science clean out of this. What's next? Should we make arguing against man made climate change a hate crime?

I think the problem of global warming that Europe is so intent on "solving" is their way of ignoring the real threat to the world. Again, Europe has managed to ignore the true threat to the world, radical Islam, just as they ignored the threat from Hitler. Europe, you're to well fed, to complacent, too stupid and too cowardly to solve your own problems. Maybe the USA should stand aside when Europe falls under the yoke of Islam. Perhaps we should withdraw all of our troops from around the world, use them to defend OUR borders and let you fend for yourselves. America defeated Hitler, Communism,and we've been an umbrella over the free world for too many years.

Really the only difference between the GW fanatics and the Dark Ages' Catholic priesthood is that they changed "heretic" to "denier." You still get excommunicated if you question a single word of the Holy Scripture of An Inconvenient Truth. (Ever hear of Bjorn Lomborg?)

I will take the time to play a bit of devil's advocate here, since there has been only a few in support of this point.

The analogy is more apt then I think people are willing to recognize. I think because of the dehumanization associated with this line of thought we find it repugnant - but this is how the anti-abolishonists thought:

Without the resource of nearly free labour, our economy will be crippled. And they protested this greatly.

Today, we have largly replaced the tasks that would have been done by slaves with machinary(not entirly, and definatly not in many places outside of north america). It is because of the low price of oil that we can do any of this. We are dependent on the low price of oil and it's extremely easy to liberate chemical energy to our way of life and our economy, in ways which are VERY similer to the slave arguments of the last centuries.

That said, the remarks are I think somewhat inflamatory. Regardless of how true they are, they are going to sour the debate further. Though at this point, I don't think it can go much further.

Really the only difference between the GW fanatics and the Dark Ages' Catholic priesthood is that they changed "heretic" to "denier." You still get excommunicated if you question a single word of the Holy Scripture of An Inconvenient Truth. (Ever hear of Bjorn Lomborg?)

Bjørn Lomborg (born January 6, 1965) is an Adjunct Professor at the Copenhagen Business School and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. He became internationally-known for his best-selling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist. After the book's publication, members of the Danish and international scientific community accused Lomborg of "scientific dishonesty", although Lomborg is not trained in the natural sciences, and he does not claim to be.[1] These allegations were investigated by appropriate arms of the Danish government and in the end, no official charges were left standing. However, there are scientists who remain critical of Lomborg's work.[2]

"I think the problem of global warming that Europe is so intent on "solving" is their way of ignoring the real threat to the world. Again, Europe has managed to ignore the true threat to the world, radical Islam, just as they ignored the threat from Hitler. Europe, you're to well fed, to complacent, too stupid and too cowardly to solve your own problems. Maybe the USA should stand aside when Europe falls under the yoke of Islam. Perhaps we should withdraw all of our troops from around the world, use them to defend OUR borders and let you fend for yourselves. America defeated Hitler, Communism,and we've been an umbrella over the free world for too many years."

I feel I speak for everyone in "too well fed, too complacent, too stupid and too cowardly" Europe by saying: what a fool you are. I hope you choke on your own inflated egotism.

Back to the debate: Slavery is bad (and do not pretend it doesn't exist). So is the possibility of catching Malaria in Oxford (which is one possible effect). Regardless of GW existing or not, we should still live greener. C02 does not just warm the world, but is just one part of the problem: pollution. This destroys forests, dissolves rocks(carbonic acid), disrupts eco-systems and generally is bad. Living greener is NOT JUST about Global Warming, but saving the planet. If we carry on the way of the status quo (not the band), all I can say is: thank God for the rainbow. (Genesis)

Global Warming Hysteria at its best! Compare critics of computer-generated scaremongering with slavery supporters. Why not compare us with mass-murderers like Adolf Hitler or the plague itself? How unscientific and silly can the debate get?

Future generations will indeed scratch their heads and ask themselves: How could a theory that's based on no empirical evidence at all (remember that the hockey stick graph was withdrawn by the UN) get away with it for so long in an age that's supposedly dominated by science?Check out Professor Bob Carter's talk on Youtube. It's a real eye-opener.

Wow, 'mike morgan', what kind of a bubble do you live in? Global warming is being brought about by Islam? "Just as they ignored the threat from Hitler." Well, better to ignore the threat from Hitler than to contribute $475 million to his regime, and then stay out until he declares war on you.

If we're going to talk about science and slavery, we should mention that there was a consensus among scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries that white people were racially superior to other races. This claim was backed by the most modern scientific methods of the time and was often used to justify slavery. I think future generations will laugh at us for believing that driving our cars too much was the primary cause of climate change on a planet whose climate has been changing for about 4 billion years.

Global Warming has become just like the Pharmacuetical Industry, a huge profiteering business for those involved. Global warming is a natural phenomenon, we will have droughts and floods and even a regular ice age. My biggest beef with this whole farce is the 'plastic bag' issue. Now in Australia, plastic bags will be totally banned in this year. Now when we want to reuse our plastic bags for our rubbish, storage, whatever, we can all go and buy them from the shops and they will become a big seller because everybody uses them. Yes! You can buy biodegradable plastic bags but I can get biodegradable bags from my supermarket for free. Not any more. Wow! Maybe I should have got in at the bottom of the green cloth bag sales.

The comparison demonstrates that similar arguments cannot be treated as decisive at least at the level of detail presented."

No, it doesn't. Whether the pro-slavery arguments were correct or not is completely irrelevant to whether modern arguments based on economics are correct or not. Especially since economics, as a science, has advanced a lot since the mid 19th century.

I agree whole-heartedly with Mike Morgan, 1/17 6:56PM with his comments about the dying civilization in Europe. What a bunch of spoiled, pampered, non-thinkers you have all become.

How presumptious can you be about slavery. You act like America invented it and exported it to the rest of the world. Well, sorry to burst your bubbles but slavery existed throughout the history of the world until Britain, followed by America, expunged it and at very great cost I might add. It still goes on around the world today but you would never know it from the righteously-indignant Euros.

I am completely disgusted with the abuse we take from you ingrates. I hope we do become isolationist, withdraw from any area of the world not deemed directly in our own national security interest, and let you all drown in your own nonsense.

You are all hilarious with your sanctimonious posturing about "leading the world in fighting climate change." You have made it abundantly clear the only thing you have the guts to fight is something that won't or can't fight back, like an imaginary climate threat. It is also hilarious that the US is the only country actually reducing their GHGs while the rest of you talk about doing it while dramatically increasing your own. Too funny.

It seems to me that main point is, that rather than argue on the science, those who believe that CO2 causes dangerous man-made global warming choose to vilify those who argue that the science is not settled. And when was science ever settled?

Why can't we have an objective debate on the facts;1 The world has not warmed since 19982 Climate models are worthless because they failed to predict the cooling and cannot predict El Nino - the major weather event worldwide3 As Svensmark and Calder showed in "The Chilling Stars" sunspots and cosmic rays have a far greater influence on our climate than GH gases4 If GH gases caused global warming, then it would show up as a hotspot above the tropics. There is no such hotspot. Therefore CO2 does not cause GW.5 It was warmer in the MWP, Arctic Ice has retreated before, the USA was warmest in 1934, Antarctic sea ice was at a record extent last winter, Arctic sea ice reformed at a record rate and is now "normal" etc etc.

Lets debate the science and stop all this name calling! It doesn't matter who he is, if his facts are right, no amount of name calling - or "consensus" can change that.

PS Why can't the New Scientist return to its roots and become an objective reviewer of science - as it was when Calder was editor? For the first time in 45 years, I have not renewed my subscription. It is now "Junk Scientist".

The argument needs detailed cool analysis to see if there is any merit in it. For me, it doesn't matter. People have used rationalisation for their points of view, both sides of any issue, for countless generations. Economic rationalisation is just one of them, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the facts.

The diatribes from climate deniers are far more entertaining though. If they had read any of the evidence for global warming over the past 15 years they would have realised they were on a losing horse, but there you go. You can't expect to get to the bottom of things if you just read stuff from one side of the argument.

I must say that the only thing that surprises me about current observations is that it is happening even earlier than I expected. I used to think things would get bad, but not catastrophic. Now I'm starting to get a very bad feeling about where we are going, the changes appear non-linear ... more research and more action is required ... unless you are of the belief we should all just roll over and die.

John Cook's website has a nice list of long-debunked arguments, with each item in the mnain list pointing to a webpage that describes the argument, explains includes references to published papers in the peer-reviewed literature that show the errors in the argument:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

It's not worth debating the same junk again and again, so I'll just convert Kiwibuzz's list into John's codenames & item numbers [the latter change occasionally since it's order by current popularity]:

1: [1998] #183: [cosmic] #14, [sun] #1, [scl] #455: [change] #2, [1934] #12, [antarctica] #11, plus observed fact that in the Northern Hemisphere, it is Winter, and the Arctic refreezes at that time, although everybody is worried about the *depth* of the ice.

2: is a wrong strawman: climate models predict long-term effects, not short-term oscillations. Anyone could predict that in Sacramento California, the average temperature during July will be higher than the average temperature in January, but what will it be on July 4? Nobody expects to know.

Nobody predicts what Kiwibuzz says they do. They predict more warming at higher latitudes, especially (first) over the Arctic (given "ice-albedo feedback"), given that it's at sea level surrounded by land.

My references are, in general, to science that has emerged since mid 2006, when the IPCC 'locked in" so that they could prepare their politically driven SPM. So it is pointless to quote old IPCC against recent research.

How do you know the climate models can predict temperatures long term? Are you suggesting that the climate is understood as well as the effect of the tilt of the earth? Even the IPCC don't go that far!

There is no doubt that the models predicted higher temperatures in the upper atmosphere over the tropics. It doesn't show up. The reference is: DOI: 10.1002/joc 1651.

Of course it's a similar issue. Not exactly the same, but similar. Not hard at all to see. The way in which we are currently going forward is also in a very real sense a crime against humanity. I mean.. In 40 years time when the arctic is completely free of ice in the summer and the millions of animals that depend on it have to die. Is that not a crime? Is it not a crime against our children to deny them the opportunity to see these animals alive in their natural habitats? Not to even speak about the large scale climate change that an arctic without ice will no doubt bring about...

Saying that the people who are putting forward predictions and ideas around climate change are unscientific is also a contradiction in terms, because there is general scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that we are largely to blame. There is simply too much evidence.

I do not understand the resistance that alternative energy and more efficient use of energy ideas receive. If you can cut your power bill in half then will this not put you in a better financial position? If the electricity you do need is generated in a way that do not cause pollution then will your health not benefit from it? Of course it can't happen overnight. Of course it is a monumental task. But there are already thing we can all do that can help. Stupid things like the efficiency of fridges... A fridge do not need to release CFCs that harm the ozone layer and it also do not need to use a lot of power. Current fridge models are incredibly efficient when compared to their ancestors. And luckily the old fridges that are out there will eventually just stop working and be thrown away and hopefully recycled. So people who only own modern fridges have lower power bills and they do not have to feel guilty that their fridges are harming the ozone layer. Everybody is happier. There are so many examples like this. When you have a problem that can't be solved all at once then you break it into tiny bits and do what you can until you have a complete solution. There are armies of scientists and engineers out there who are working right now to do just that. There is absolutely no reason to be against their work. Their making wonderful progress. There is every indication that in time we will able to get rid of all this dirty energy. And why not want it? They're trying to make the world a cleaner place. I say awesome!

If we feared change as much as some people out there seem to then our cars would still be steam driven and run on coal and water. Or we'd still be reliant on horses or donkeys for transport.

I say yes to a cleaner healthier future. And to those who resist it. I say: I hope you live on the coast.

And I just want to say that it is unfortunate that some Americans here thought this was targeted against them and just started retaliating against Europe and saying they should just withdraw from the rest of the world. There are people all over the world who do not agree with GW theories including in the EU. So cool down guys.

And yeah... Going solo will work just wonderfully. I mean surely America has all the resources it needs to go on the way it does. No way they need anything from the rest of the world. lol Let me tell you as a South African that it is no fun to be cut off from the rest of the world.

Wait a minute. I just re-read it. They actually did aim it at the US. Hectic... I do not know myself whether there are more people in the US against climate reform or not. Maybe they're just referring to the lack of political will around the issue there. Nobody can deny that there is a lot of positive innovation coming from the US. And I think by now it is well known how much pressure the voters are putting on their leaders. I do believe everybody knows America has an important part to play in what has to come. And I'm sure Americans will insist America does play that part.

Sorry, your wording was not overly precise and I misinterpreted it to mean increased heating in the tropics compared to higher latitudes. You meant the Douglass, Pearson, Christy, Singer paper, which might sound impressive if you don't understand time-series statistics, uncertainties and error bars. These guys have been trying for years to disprove global warming, even as the data piles up otherwise. This particular paper was debunked, in detail, here:

I think that thread's still open for posting, so you can ask questions there.

Terrible papers usually got stopped by peer review, but bad papers get through all the time, then totally fail to stand up to later analysis.

In any case, one doesn't need computer models to know that it's going to get warmer, although with the usual jiggles, since CO2 is not the only effect. The models are trying to get more precise than the basics (and succeeding), but AGW basics were understood well before computers got useful.

All one really needs is basic physics:

1) The Greenhouse Effect works, thankfully, since Earth would be rather cooler than we'd like.

2) More GHGs mean warming, given well-known radiative physics. CO2 isn't the only GHG, but it stays in the atmosphere longer than, for example, methane. Water vapor is a great GHG, but it's a feedback, not a forcing.

3) And we know the increase in CO2 comes from us:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect

For more info:

See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

or for more authoritative sources:

See IPCC's SPM, which is not that long: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Or, see Spencer Weart's fine history:http://www.aip.org/history/climate/via the American Institute of Physics, which explains how we came to know what we know. The Hadley Centre in UK has plenty of information, including another description of common myths:http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

As for references, you've provided exactly one, to a not-very-good paper. It would save time if you just said where you get this stuff: nzclimatescience, or junkscience, or co2science, or the George C. Marshall Institute or SEPP or SPPI or...

Even if it were a good paper, it is a rarity when any single paper overturns a massive body of evidence accumulated over years, and based on standard physics. [Denialists keep hoping, but this is like hoping a neighbor's house collapses via a 5-minute attack by one woodpecker.] In any case, recent Arctic and even Antarctic behaviors are even worse than the IPCC AR4 expected, so recent data amplifies what they say.

If you are really, really sure that computer simulations are useless, you should stay out of modern cars, airplanes, and buildings, and off modern bridges. You should stay away from all microprocessors as well.

I am familiar with most of the references you give. I am also familiar with the realclimate site which was set up to defend Michael Mann's now discredited hockey stick. I was at the climate science conference in Sweden when professor Hans von Storch publicly accused Michael Mann of scientific fraud. (I have this on a DVD.) Michael Mann and realclimate, I am sure, know that this accusation was made and they have never responded to it. I am also aware of the many many scientific errors in Al Gore's "and inconvenient truth". Errors that he has refused to acknowledge - because, if he did, just everything everything he has said would be discredited.

I am also aware that the greenhouse effect does keep the world warm. It is not the greenhouse effect of CO2 that is in question but the feedback effect of water vapour. Recent research shows that increased water vapour leads to increases in low altitude clouds which tend to cool. All the computer models assume that it leads to an increase in high altitude clouds which lead to warming. It is in the feedback effect where the models are wrong.

It is true that terrible papers get through peer review and Mann Bradley and Hughes on the Hockey Stick is a prime example.

We do know that at least some of the increase in carbon dioxide is man-made. We know that it has increased plant growth by about 15%. We also know that CO2, of itself, cannot produce much warming because its radiation bands are already virtually saturated.

I have a masters degree in power system analysis so I am well aware of the uses - and limitations - of computer models. When modelling a disturbance on a large power system we know that the program is an accurate representation of the system. But we also know that errors of only a few percent in the input data can lead to seriously wrong results. Climate models are not an accurate representation of the system and it is well-known that we do not have enough information to input accurate starting point data. We also know that none of the models handle clouds properly and that none of them can predict an El Nino year - the major climatic event. So how can we rely on their long term predictions? We know that over the last twenty years they have failed to make accurate predictions.

Regarding references, if you look, there are many, many references to good papers that question man-made global warming. Because I know it well, you could do worse than start with www.climatescience.org.nz and http://climatedebatedaily.com

The second one covers both sides of the argument.

And there is also Kristen Byrnes at http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html that shows what a schoolgirl with an open and questioning mind can achieve. And yes, she is real. I have spoken to her on the telephone.

So I repeat: "the science is not settled and open debate is needed." And that is exactly what we are not getting from the New Scientist.

-reading primary research literature in credible journals (like Science, which I read every week, since I'm a AAAS member).- talking to Nobel Physics winners- talking to US National Academy of Science members- talking to Fellow of Royal Society (UK) - talking to other senior climate scientists with many peer-reviewed publications in credible journals (not E&E)- reading lots of books- watching many websites and assessing their credibility over years, and especially reading credible ones like NASA, UK Met, etc.

So, I do all that stuff, and I've been lucky to work with world-class scientists and engineers for 35+ years, and I listen hard to the top people in the field.

But, if *you* think:

a) www.climatescience.org.nz is a credible source (it actually claims SSRC is a US AGENCY ... rather than an answering service for someone with no obvious climate expertise who is looking for consulting on it. It's not even clear he actually has an office at the pretty building shown on his website.) The NZ site also says:"It is true that some of the more hysterical and extreme claims about global warming appear symptomatic of a pagan emptiness" ... that's science? I've looked at this site, but only occasionally, because, as denialist sites go, it's not that strong.

b) 15-year (well, maybe 16 now) Kristen is a credible source,

c) And with all due respect to Denis Dutton (whose Arts & Letters Daily has long been a favorite of mine), why a philosophy prof assumes competence to assess climate science is beyond me. Is he a physicist? a mathematician?

Anyway, if you think those are good sources, you can believe what you like, and I'm certainly not going to try any more. Been There, Done that, no more.

a) climatescience.org.nz is a source for articles skeptical of AGW. Each must be judged on its own merits. You cannot rubbish all the references by picking on a minor error in one.

b) Of Kristen I said " shows what a schoolgirl with an open and questioning mind can achieve." And she does. The fact that you choose to believe the "consensus view" does not detract from what she has done. In my world you can admire what someone has achieved without necessarily agreeing with all of it.

c) Denis Dutton has done a great service by providing a resource that references articles that support and are skeptical of AGW. All you need for that is a degree in common sense and a good bulldust detector. He has both.

I'm not trying to get you to agree. I'm just trying to get you to debate the evidence. Like the way climate models are wrong about clouds, the discredited hockey stick, that CO2 has promoted plant growth, that it was warmer in the past. Are you still suggesting that future climate is understood as well as the effect of the tilt of the earth?

"For starters, climate change and slavery cannot be compared. The former is a self-imposed "slavery" to a mineral source of energy; the latter an imposed slavery of one group of humans to another."

That's looking at the arguments from different sides, and getting all worked up about the 'slavery' term.

From the point of view of the consumer in each case, the economy is bound to and based on an energy supply that is under threat and is consequently becoming more expensive and harder to guarantee, but is still immensely profitable for a few, while changing to another energy source would reduce the profits of a few more in the short-medium term. So comparing the the rhetoric is valid because it may or may not show that the senators/people involved have a very similar set of goals and agendas, which may in turn show that those agendas may not be put aside without a massive dislocation. Global warming being proved wrong would be one such dislocation, New York being flooded might be another.

Your post gives some insight into the incredible damage that that will be done by the man-made global warming hysteria.

Just imagine for a second that you (and the scientific establishement) are wrong. Imagine that the world cools signficantly over the next 20 - 30 years.

If this is the case them whatis society going to think about the people and institutions that are on your list of "reliable" source.

As a reminder to our readers, I repeat the list here.

-reading primary research literature in credible journals (like Science, which I read every week, since I'm a AAAS member).

What do you think is going to happen to the credibility of these so-called "respectable" journals?

- talking to Nobel Physics winners

Think of how global cooling will tarnish the standing of the Nobel prizes, particularly the Nobel Peace Prize!

- talking to US National Academy of Science members- talking to Fellow of Royal Society (UK)

The reputation of these scientific bodies will be totally ruined.

- talking to other senior climate scientists with many peer-reviewed publications in credible journals (not E&E)

And what rock will these charlatans hide under if we experience global cooling?

- reading lots of books

Good - but I hope you learn to read books that actually question your views, not reinforces them.

- watching many websites and assessing their credibility over years, and especially reading credible ones like NASA, UK Met, etc.

Nature is about to humble you by teaching you a lesson about the cost of arrogance. I hope you will take this lesson to heart. Unfortunately, the credibility of modern science will be in ruins at your feet.

I agree with arnhay: what have we got to lose with going greener? What is so great about being bound to the oil industry? Going greener is not just about combating global warming (although many make it out to be). It is about having a clean world. This (oh the shock) can be nothing but a good thing. The debate here is whether global warming exists or not. Truth be told, it doesn't actually need to exist to matter. It is a thoery that (if true) will have catastrophic effects upon the human kind. We should follow a policy of modified Pascal's wager. If we live well and proper, and global warming was a threat, then we have gained; if it does not, then we have lost nothing. If, however it does exist and we do nothing, then we will have those catastropies mentioned. "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing"Last time I brought this up, people thought I was bringing religion into the debate: I have not.Peace, and keep questioning. There is nothing to lose by doing so (apart from your dignity, and who has that these days?)

I agree with arnhay: what have we got to lose with going greener?>>>AGW has little to do with being "green". CO2 make plants grow better so it is green. Biofuels are an environmental and economic disaster - and make no difference to CO2. Windfarms are very expensive and can have only a tiny effect.. They require expensive backup from fossil fuel stations. Solar electric is even more expensive and requires huge pumped storage hydro stations - for which few sites exist. Nuclear power on the other hand has a tiny environmental effect and reduces CO2 and the greenies and the global warmers hate it. Why?

What is so great about being bound to the oil industry? >>>Nothing that AGW does reduces dependence on the oil industry. By opposing coal, it makes us even more dependent. AGW is a gift to oil companies!

Going greener is not just about combating global warming (although many make it out to be). It is about having a clean world. >> Going greener honestly is NOT about combating GW.

The debate here is whether global warming exists or not. Truth be told, it doesn't actually need to exist to matter. It is a thoery that (if true) will have catastrophic effects upon the human kind.>> And if it is wrong, it will be even worse. The world is set to spend $billions on AGW but if global cooling continues, it will be money wasted and the world will be less well equipped to combat the much more dangerous cooling.

If, however it does exist and we do nothing, then we will have those catastropies mentioned. >>EVERYTHING (Except perhaps nuclear power) that is being proposed to combat GW is demonstrably futile. But lots of people - Al Gore included - stand to make huge amounts of money from carbon trading, research grants, flogging heavily subsidized uneconomic renewable energy and the like.

"lots of people - Al Gore included - stand to make huge amounts of money from carbon trading, research grants, flogging heavily subsidized uneconomic renewable energy and the like." Yes, and that is very wrong of them. Carbon trading: whoever thought that up must be laughing their way to the bank. Anyway, kiwibuzz, you mentioned global cooling, which was all the rage in the eighties... and nuclear power in the seventies... and war for the first half of 20th century... and slavery in the 19th century...and colonies in the 18th century... and religion before that. All very important, all take a stance, but nowadays, do we care?By the way, you wrote that it will be catastrophic if it is wrong. I cannot see how, unless the politicians havge really got the wrong end of the stick (the one covered in razorblades).Peace.

How come a science news website attracts comments from such irrational anti-science chumps? I hope it's a reflection of the anti-IPCC mob's herd mentality and over-abundance of spare time than it is on the NS readership as a whole.

The same ad hom, the same cherry-picking, the same ignorance. Still no evidence to overturn the science. To pick one, the "it's just computer models" wail: no, the emperical evidence is there too

Going back on-topic, for what it's worth, I haven't read the paper yet but frankly I think the denialists protest too much and the author must have a wicked sense of humour knowing that the denialist faction is overwhelmingly a US phenomenom (like "creation science").

So very true...I just hope people don't start on this very rightful observation from racial point of view, because that would serve no one and change the subject once again. Climate changes are proved but they are not irreversible and the continuing denial of USA to act upon it is as shameful for mankind as slavery. Yes,it might sound outrageous, but just as freedom is inherited quality and undeniable right of every human being,the responsibility toward the Earth and all of her citizens is absolute obligation of every nation.

I'll just repeat myself- why is your right to drive on cheaper oil bigger than my right to breath clean air or to live on normal climate? I don't see actually a reason. We're all citizens of Earth and using its resource when it's obviously affecting everybody's life should be to the best to ALL of us, not to just a favorised part.

The argument for slavery is bad economic science, read Sowell to find out why, which some here have touched upon. Therefore incorrect economic theory was being used in the past to defend obviously criminal behavior.

Whereas today the economic arguments against the proposals by environmentalists are 100% sound. There is no need to wait 100 years to figure that out either.

"Slavery in the US was a monumental crime against humanity which has never been adequately acknowledged."

Not adequately acknowledged? Apparently you've never been through the US education system, know nothing about the Civil War sacrifices by northerners, are unfamiliar with the abolishonists, or "white guilt", affirmative action, and the like. What rock have you been hiding under?

"It remains a great stain against the US to this day."

Yet it doesn't seem in your mind to stain the actual people, the British who introduced the system?

You know, it's not like the US invented slavery or anything like that. We inherited a system that was worldwide and practiced by those brown skinned peoples too.

In fact Europe and Britian were both large sources for the slave trade that those brown skinned Muslims perpetrated, to the tune of millions and up into the 1800s.

If the British and the US didn't invent slavery they at least had the moral fortitude to realize it was wrong and abolish it.

As a side effect and because the British and US controlled the seas it ended up being abolished in much of the "brown skinned" world, and much to their moral discredit they fought against this.

Unfortunately the practice has not been abandoned by all non-US and non-British countries.

"The comparison of the rhetoric used by apologists of both camps tends to trivialize the enormity of this horrific crime of slavery."

A crime that people of all races are guilty of, as people of all races participated, not just in the New World slave trade but in all the other cases.

It's especially funny that white haters like the Lenord Jefferies theorize that Egypt was run by blacks since that would make them the original enslavers of the Jews and their moral outrage at Jewish involvement in the slave trade have much less sting. Be sure however that Egyptians were not europeans.

So please get off your high horse and learn some history.

"Let us not waste time and energy on useless debate with those who are impervious to reason and logic. We must act now before it is too late."

Might ridiculous assumption that others are impervious to reason and logic for such a chicken little who doesn't check his facts.

Maybe those of us who have arrived at our positions by reason and logic are more informed that you about subjects like economics and science than you give us credit for.

Environmentalists have made extremely bad arguments for the political "solutions" they wish to act upon. They have also exaggerated the consequences of global warming. Not exactly the kind of arguments that the rational, like me, tend to go for.